Suppr超能文献

冷冻射频与标准射频能量消融典型心房扑动的前瞻性随机对照研究

Prospective randomized comparison of cooled radiofrequency versus standard radiofrequency energy for ablation of typical atrial flutter.

作者信息

Atiga Walter L, Worley Seth J, Hummel John, Berger Ronald D, Gohn Douglas C, Mandalakas Nicholas J, Kalbfleisch Steven, Halperin Henry, Donahue Kevin, Tomaselli Gordon, Calkins Hugh, Daoud Emile

机构信息

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Lancaster Heart Foundation, Pennsylvania, USA.

出版信息

Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2002 Aug;25(8):1172-8. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2002.01172.x.

Abstract

In patients with atrial flutter, conventional RF ablation may not result in complete isthmus block. This prospective, randomized study tested the hypothesis that the cooled RF ablation is safe and facilitates the achievement of isthmus block with fewer RF applications than with standard ablation for typical atrial flutter. Isthmus ablation was performed in 59 patients (40 men, 64 +/- 14 years) with type I atrial flutter using standard RF (n = 31) or cooled RF (n = 28) catheters with crossover after 12 unsuccessful RF applications. The endpoint was bidirectional isthmus block or a total of 24 unsuccessful RF applications. After the first 12 RF applications, 17 (55%) of 31 standard RF and 22 (79%) of 28 cooled RF patients had bidirectional isthmus block (P < 0.05). After the remaining patients crossed over to the alternate RF ablation system and underwent up to 12 more RF applications, bidirectional isthmus block had been demonstrated in 27 (87%) of 31 standard RF and 25 (89%) of 28 cooled RF patients (P = NS). Isthmus block was not achieved within 24 RF applications in four standard and three cooled RF patients. Mean measured tip temperatures for cooled RF were lower than for standard RF (38.5 degrees C +/- 6.98 degrees C vs 57.2 degrees C +/- 7.42 degrees C, P < 0.0001). Peak temperatures were also lower for cooled RF compared to standard RF (45.7 degrees C +/- 22.7 degrees C vs 63.4 degrees C +/- 9.87 degrees C, P < 0.0001). Importantly, mean power delivered was significantly higher for cooled than for standard RF (42.3 +/- 9.48 vs 34.0 +/- 14.0 W, P < 0.0001). There were no serious complications for either ablation system. During a 12.8 +/- 3.76-month follow-up, there were two atrial flutter recurrences in the cooled RF group and four in the standard RF group (P = NS). In patients with type I atrial flutter, ablation with the cooled RF catheter is as safe as, and facilitates creation of bidirectional isthmus block more rapidly than, standard RF ablation.

摘要

在心房扑动患者中,传统的射频消融可能无法导致峡部完全阻滞。这项前瞻性、随机研究检验了以下假设:与典型心房扑动的标准消融相比,冷盐水灌注射频消融是安全的,并且能够通过更少的射频应用实现峡部阻滞。对59例I型心房扑动患者(40例男性,年龄64±14岁)进行峡部消融,使用标准射频导管(n = 31)或冷盐水灌注射频导管(n = 28),在12次射频应用失败后进行交叉。终点指标为双向峡部阻滞或总共24次射频应用失败。在前12次射频应用后,31例使用标准射频的患者中有17例(55%)、28例使用冷盐水灌注射频的患者中有22例(79%)实现了双向峡部阻滞(P < 0.05)。在其余患者交叉至另一种射频消融系统并再接受多达12次射频应用后,31例使用标准射频的患者中有27例(87%)、28例使用冷盐水灌注射频的患者中有25例(89%)实现了双向峡部阻滞(P = 无显著差异)。4例使用标准射频的患者和3例使用冷盐水灌注射频的患者在24次射频应用内未实现峡部阻滞。冷盐水灌注射频的平均测量尖端温度低于标准射频(38.5℃±6.98℃ 对比 57.2℃±7.42℃,P < 0.0001)。与标准射频相比,冷盐水灌注射频的峰值温度也更低(45.7℃±22.7℃ 对比 63.4℃±9.87℃,P < 0.0001)。重要的是,冷盐水灌注射频的平均输出功率显著高于标准射频(42.3±9.48对比34.0±14.0W,P < 0.0001)。两种消融系统均未出现严重并发症。在12.8±3.76个月的随访期间,冷盐水灌注射频组有2例心房扑动复发,标准射频组有4例(P = 无显著差异)。对于I型心房扑动患者,使用冷盐水灌注射频导管进行消融与标准射频消融一样安全,并且比标准射频消融更能快速实现双向峡部阻滞。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验